The FIA apparently intends to keep the rule requiring teams to use two different compounds per race. But in order to make this more of a challenge Bridgestone plans to increase the difference in performance between the two tyres.

I have two questions about this: why has this rule been deemed worth keeping, and how are we going to be able to tell the difference between the tyres?

Why keep the ?óÔé¼?£two compounds?óÔé¼Ôäó rule?

The ?óÔé¼?£two compounds?óÔé¼Ôäó rule was introduced in 2007 when Formula 1 switched to having a single tyre supplier.

Bridgestone, who won the tyre contract, were concerned that without the tyre war with Michelin there would be little reason for F1 commentators to discuss tyres at all. That would be no good for their marketing efforts.

18 months on the rule has had its intended effect of making people talk about tyres more, which suits Bridgestone, but has it improved racing in F1? I don?óÔé¼Ôäót think it has.

Should the solution be to scrap the rule or to make the differences between the tyres greater? F1 seems to have bypassed this discussion and gone straight for option B, presumably to keep Bridgestone happy.

How will we be able to tell the difference between the tyres?

In Champ Car the softer tyre was distinguished by a red sidewall. To begin with the FIA chose to mark the softer tyres with a small white circle in F1. But they proved far too difficult to see at speed when they were first tried at the Australian Grand Prix.

So a new solution was found ?óÔé¼ÔÇ£ Bridgestone painted a white stripe in one of the grooves on the softer tyres. This has proved successful.

But next year there will be no grooves on the tyres. A line painted down the middle of a slick tyre would surely get scrubbed off very quickly. So what will thry do instead?

I suspect some teams will oppose having sidewalls of a particular colour as it would conflict with their carefully-chosen, sponsor-friendly paint schemes.

I think the most likely solution would be to have white sidewalls with black lettering on the softer tyres. But this is F1 so expect a more complicated and less effective system to be found…

USA Champ Cars used two compounds, the outer sidewall
was a RED stripe. I see little reason for two compounds but if it must be why not let a team/driver make a choice and use that compound for the entire race.

I may be making this too simple, but as the tires need to be directly mounted to a wheel, why not have 2 colors of wheel per team. 1 Wheel black, 1 wheel lighter valued/team color.

As most teams are going to a wheel cover scenario anyway, why not just place a colored wheel cover to indicate tire type. That would be easy, and economical. Additionally the FIA could dictate a wheel cover spec, thus it would be cheaper for the teams to run the spec wheel types (rather than go to the trouble of painting up a bunch of wheels.)

There’s fun for the day, (and the tire companies don’t need to redo the compounding to generate funky colors that’ll just rub off!)

I don’t care one jot about tyres and I don’t see the merit in a single or even two providers. Surely each team should be free to buy tyres from anyone they want and that team can then work with the provider to make their car work with their tyres.

They want to make mechanical grip more important? let teams really work on it instead of compromising every team.

“Without the tyre war with Michelin there would be little reason for F1 commentators to discuss tyres at all” Oh heavens no – God forbid that we would miss those enlightening discussions… I can’t stand it when broadcasters try to make tire compounds interesting, and I’m what people would describe as a “F1 Nerd.” I’m with you, Keith – just scrap the mandatory compound change.

Andrew – the problem with allowing teams to choose tyre suppliers and work with them is that manufacturer-backed teams will gain more than smaller outfits. I personally don’t fancy seeing Ferrari and McLaren moving even further ahead of the pack, while my beloved Williams boys head backwards into extinction.

I’m quite happy to see this rule stay if it means stability with Bridgestone as sole supplier. I don’t think it helps the sport at the moment, but I also don’t see it doing any damage. If they need more exposure, then let them have it – provided it doesn’t damage the sport. I really don’t want to see a farce in F1 like the ’03 championship again – all down to tyre suppliers pulling a fast one (both Michelin and Bridgestone).

So all the tyre compound rubbish is just for Bridgestone’s sake? Did they pay Bernie for the priviledge of being sole supplier? Mind you, they were already supplying GP2, so its no surprise really.
Didn’t anybody else think it odd that when Michelin were thrown out, the likes of Dunlop, Avon, Pirelli and Firestone weren’t approached to compete for the ‘Sole Supplier’ place? Bernie went straight to Bridgestone, no matter that they were never up to Michelin standards!
I think the teams should be able to use any supplier they want, for any part of the car, as long as its up to the current FIA/FOM specifications.
As far as showing the ‘difference’ between the two compounds, I like the idea of the wheel covers, since they have now become part of the package, and can say ‘Bridgestone’ in any colour you want. In fact you could even go so far and make it really simple and write ‘Soft’ and ‘Hard’ on the sidewalls and on the wheel covers.
Oh, and with only one supplier, who has already provided the wrong spec tyres on at least one occasion this year, what penalties are in place if they completely mess it up and make all the cars undrivable?

“Firestone werenâ€™t approached to compete for the â€˜Sole Supplierâ€™ place”
firestone is the American arm of Bridgestone, so yeah they were totally asked.
Sorry for nitpicking, i’m just pretending to have a reservoir of knowledge.